FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article about the Supreme Court’s denial of a petition “to review a February ruling . . . that held claims of ChromaDex, Inc.’s patent on an isolated form of vitamin B3 are directed to unpatentable subject matter under Section 101”;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “vacated a $4.6 million award for lost profits” in a patent case; and
• an article highlighting a recent “fight over words” at the Federal Circuit in another patent case.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion, which earned a dissent from Judge Reyna, addresses an appeal of a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board cancelling registration of a trademark. One of the nonprecedential opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of noninfringement of a patent by a district court, while the other addresses an appeal from a judgment of a district court dismissing a patent infringement claim due to claim preclusion. Two of the orders transfer cases, one denies a motion for writs of mandamus for various relief, and three dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from orders, and links to the dismissals.

Today, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. The opinion addresses an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding that claims are anticipated and obvious in light of the prior art. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions: one in a veterans case addressing service connection for disabilities and one in a pro se case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and addressing untimeliness of a petition for review. Late yesterday and this morning, the court also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders. In the first order, the court granted a petition to transfer an appeal from the Southern District of California to the Ninth Circuit. The other three nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here is text from the order transferring the appeal and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit explains that it vacated the lower court’s decision granting judgment on the administrative record in favor of the government and remanded the case. Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here is an introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. In it, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that a patent is unenforceable based on prosecution laches. Notably, Judge Stark filed a dissenting opinion. The two nonprecedential opinions come in separate patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal, both involving the same parties. In each opinion, Judge Lourie filed additional views and Judge Stark filed a concurring opinion, both addressing the argument the Supreme Court overruled the Federal Circuit’s approach to obviousness with respect to design patents. Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit also released six nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• commentary on the swearing in of new Federal Circuit Judge Tiffany P. Cunningham;
• discussion of a recent precedential Federal Circuit opinion applying the limitation on patent damages found in 35 U.S.C. § 287(a); and
• an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s determination that appointments to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board do not violate the Appointments Clause.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Here is the introduction to the opinion.